Herman would be a great choice if only he had more political experience. That will hold him back form being taken as a serious candidate. But look who is in the White House now, Mr. Experience himself. :-)

At least Herman has ran a business unlike our current community organizer.

Anything the media can do to minimalize Dr. Ron Paul, they will do. Like in 2008 when fox "news" cut out Ron Paul's answers to questions when they reaired the debate. Just like you don't hear Herman Cain used to work for the federal reserve, they don't want you to know that.

I noticed that on fox "news" this morning when they were covering the debate. They didn't even mention Paul and only showed one shot of him and he wasn't even talking then. They did spend a lot of time showing Gingrich -- boob.

I noticed that on fox "news" this morning when they were covering the debate. They didn't even mention Paul and only showed one shot of him and he wasn't even talking then. They did spend a lot of time showing Gingrich -- boob.

I have to agree with everyone... Dr. Ron Paul is my number two guy but Herman Cain is my favorite partly because he does not have the political experience. He was on Neal Bortz radio show yesterday before the debate talking about the fact that he had no political experience and that he was going to treat the presidency as if he was the CEO of the country. If this logical approach is adopted by the white house imagine the possibilities furthermore it should be mentioned that I think Herman has a better chance of beating Obama and that is what I REALLY WANT TO SEE. As far as the debate went last night I think Dr. Ron Paul won it in my eyes. His answers were more concise, easier to follow, more logical, and most of all more to the point than some of his counterparts you took it as an opportunity to spout their predetermined rhetoric. He also received a lot more time than Herman Cain who apparently nailed the first debate in SC which I missed.

Politician vs. CEO for president? I'd expect a politician to be more successful. A CEO is used to running things his own way and having his orders followed without question. A president has to be able to compromise and cooperate with Congress to get important legislation passed. While the president does have a lot of unilateral authority in running the executive agencies (e.g., NLRB -- been following the Boeing case?), even those agencies have to operate within the limits placed on them by Congress.

I'd rather vote for a politician who shares the same political viewpoints as me (fiscal conservative, libertarian), AND will also have the ability to work with Congress, dems and reps.

Politician vs. CEO for president? I'd expect a politician to be more successful. A CEO is used to running things his own way and having his orders followed without question. A president has to be able to compromise and cooperate with Congress to get important legislation passed. While the president does have a lot of unilateral authority in running the executive agencies (e.g., NLRB -- been following the Boeing case?), even those agencies have to operate within the limits placed on them by Congress.

I'd rather vote for a politician who shares the same political viewpoints as me (fiscal conservative, libertarian), AND will also have the ability to work with Congress, dems and reps.

Great points but I would argue that a CEO that has to deal with a board of directors has less weight in the negotiations than a president and has to appeal more to logical progressions than the mandates and orders you have suggested because they are forced to negotiation directly with their bosses. Furthermore politicians have a cultivated narcissism that would not be tolerated in the corporate world.

I noticed that on fox "news" this morning when they were covering the debate. They didn't even mention Paul and only showed one shot of him and he wasn't even talking then. They did spend a lot of time showing Gingrich -- boob.

Precisely the reason for this thread. It is important enough to me to do this and to help promote his ideas. I know this is a small audience but who knows what may happen.

Great points but I would argue that a CEO that has to deal with a board of directors has less weight in the negotiations than a president and has to appeal more to logical progressions than the mandates and orders you have suggested because they are forced to negotiation directly with their bosses. Furthermore politicians have a cultivated narcissism that would not be tolerated in the corporate world.

Right. I didn't think about the CEO/BOD relationship as similar to POTUS/Congress, but I guess there would be similarities.